Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: 9 Feb 2005 10:10:09 -0800

kenseto wrote:
> "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107896444.321874.134250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1107877538.139492.70170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1107808520.313350.112270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
news:1107796347.465574.181600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > news:1107793720.605793.78390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > news:1107786964.640625.245050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What you said here is nonsense. Before they invented the
> > rubber
> > > > ruler
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > use a physical non-rubber ruler to measure length.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Doesn't address the point. I said the rubber ruler
followed
> > > > after
> > > > > > the abandonment of independent measures of time and space,
not
> > vice
> > > > > > versa. You said the rubber ruler followed the non-rubber
ruler.
> > > > >
> > > > > That abandonment is not justified. We use physical non-rubber
> > ruler
> > > > and
> > > > > cl*** second to measure time and space everyday.
> > > >
> > > > No, you don't. You use a physical non-rubber ruler to measure
the
> > > > length of something at rest with respect to the ruler ONLY. You
use
> > a
> > > > clock-second to measure the duration of something that happens
at
> > the
> > > > same place, the place of the clock, ONLY.
> > >
> > > So what is your point?
> > >
> > > >For *all* other
> > > > circumstances, a physical non-rubber ruler measures only an
> > > > approximation to that length,
> > >
> > > What all other circumstances??
> >
> > For example, how would you measure with a physical non-rubber ruler
the
> > length of a stick flying by at 20 m/s? Be careful here. I'm asking
you
> > do define length measurement.
>
> Sigh....you don't and can't *measure* the length of a moving ruler.
You
> *predict* its length using IRT or LT. In the case of IRT it posits
that the
> physical length of a moving ruler is the same as that of the
observer's
> ruler. However, the light path length of a moving ruler is longer or
shorter
> than the observer's light path length.
> In the case of SR (LT) it posits that the goemetrical projection of
the
> moving rod in the observer's frame is contracted. This prediction
also
> assumes that the ruler is not physically contracted. This prediction
is the
> same as the IRT prediction that the moving ruler has a longer light
path
> length.

If all you can do is *predict* the length of a moving ruler, but you
can't measure it, then you can't test the prediction, and it becomes an
empty theory.
There MUST be a way to measure a moving ruler, to test the theory. What
is that way?

>
> >
> > > For that matter a rubber ruler also measures
> > > only an approximation to that length because a light second (a
rubber
> > > ruler) varies in universal time content in different part of the
> > earth.
> > >
> > > >and a clock second measures only an
> > > > approximation to that duration.
> > >
> > > True and that's why a clock second is a rubber second.
> > >
> > > >The approximation works reasonably
> > > > well, but it is still an approximation. The abandonment is not
only
> > > > justified but REQUIRED once it is seen the approximation fails.
> > >
> > > It is not justified and it is not required.
> >
> > If the approximation fails experimentally, would you then recant?
>
> There is no experiment that could fail a difinition for physical
length
> measurement from which the definition for length measurement using
> light-second to measure length was born.

I'm sorry. Rewrite that sentence. I can't parse it accurately enough to
be sure what you said.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't have a choice, because the alternative, calibrating
in
> > > > meters, is no better, because SR asserts that a meter in one
frame
> > does
> > > > not correspond to a meter in another frame.
> > >
> > > I do have a choice. Calibrating in physical meter is better.
> >
> > Why??? How do you know that calibrating length is easier than
> > calibrating time? Define length. Carefully. I've asked you to do
this
> > repeatedly.
>
> Length is the length of a metal bar in Paris.

This is not true anymore, by the way. Did you know that?

Moreover, it makes the meter no more special than the definition of the
second, which is:
"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

If you tell me, "But the second is not the same duration in all
inertial frames", then I will respond as surely as there is rain, "But
the length of the metal bar in Paris is not the same in all inertial
frames."

What makes the meter more special than the second?

> The difinition of light-second
> for length is born from this length. However, a light-second will
represent
> different length in different frames. Why? Because a clock second
contains a
> different amount of universal time in different frames. That's why
using
> physical rod length to measure length is better. Remember that both
SR and
> IRT agree that the physical length of a rod remains the same in all
frames
> of reference.
> >
> > > It is
> > > irrelevant what SR asserts. Furthermore, that assertion of SR can
be
> > > replaced by a different assertion: mainly that the light-path
length
> > of a
> > > physical meter stick is lengthen when it is in a state of
> > moiton.....this is
> > > the same as length contraction in SR.
> > >
> > > >There IS NO ruler that is
> > > > free from this problem. There is therefore no reason to not
> > calibrate
> > > > in rubber units, since there is no choice in the matter.
> > >
> > > I don't understand: Why is there no choice?
> >
> > The meter is just as rubber as the second. You don't have nonrubber
> > units to calibrate against.
>
> No the length of a metal bar is not rubberry. Both SR and IRT psoit
that the
> length of a metal bar do not change physically in different frames.

Let's be careful here. SR posits that neither the metal bar nor a clock
change physically in different frames. SR *does* posit that the length
of the metal bar and the duration of a tick of the clock are different
in different frames. Did you think not?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Define the length of an object. Carefully. This will
help
> > > > determine
> > > > > > whether a non-rubber or a rubber ruler is required to do
it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Define length the old fashion way will reveal the absolute
frame.
> > > >
> > > > Define it, the old-fashioned way. Do it. Carefully.
> >
> > You did not answer this. I can't tell you how crucial this is!
>
> The definition for a meter is the length of a metal bar in Paris.

OK, so tell me how I use this bar to measure the length of another
object. Be as precise as you can.

> >
> > > >
> > > > No, that's NOT true. It says that Maxwell's equations remain
> > unchanged
> > > > regardless of inertial frame.
> > >
> > > That in turn is due to the fact that a cl*** second represents a
> > rubber
> > > interval of universal time.
> >
> > The hell it is.
>
> The hell it isn't. SR says that a clock second in one frame does not
> correspond to a clock second in another frame. This means that the
passage
> of a clock second in one frame does not correspond to the passage of
a clock
> second in another frame. This means that these clock seconds contains
a
> different amount of universal time. This also means that a clock
second
> represents a rubber (a different) interval of universal time in
different
> frames.

That's not what I was objecting to. You said that the invariance of
Maxwell's equations was DUE to the rubber second. The hell it is.

>
> >Maxwell knew nothing about rubber seconds. Nor did he
> > say, "These laws only work in the earth's frame of reference." The
PoR
> > *precedes* any understanding of how rubber seconds and meters are.
>
> Both Maxwell and the PoR use *clock second* to formulate physical
laws. A
> *clock second* is a rubber second.

That has nothing to do with its invariance. The invariance is displayed
in the law, regardless of the clock second.

> >
> > >
> > > >It says that conservation of energy
> > > > remains unchanged regardless of inertial frame. It says that
> > > > conservation of momentum remains unchanged regardless of
inertial
> > > > frame. NONE of those physical laws presume that distance is
> > measured
> > > > with a clock. You are confused on what the PoR means. If you
> > dispute
> > > > this, then state clearly what you think the PoR says.
> > >
> > > ????? Are you saying that none of these physical laws is framed
with
> > a clock
> > > second????
> >
> > Not what I said. I said none of these laws presume that distance is
> > measured with a clock, which if you look, is what you said.
>
> Right but the formulator assumed that the light path length of his
ruler is
> the same as the physical length of his ruler. This is true only if
the
> formulator is at absolute rest. Since the formulator is in a state of
motion
> this assumption is wrong. Also this is why SR is incomplete and
that's why I
> invented the IRT.

And this is patently false. In a two-body collision, momentum is
conserved whether the value of the individual momenta are measured by
someone at rest or moving. NO ASSUMPTION of absolute rest is required,
nor is there any assumption about the equivalence of light-path length
or physical length.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The PoR, in turn, enables an observer
> > > > > > > to assume that he is at rest in absolute space
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is NOTHING in SR that says this.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is. Only the observer at absolute rest can claim that
all
> > > > clocks
> > > > > moving wrt him are running slow and SR is claiming that..
> > > >
> > > > Bull. SR explicitly says that if there are two relatively
moving
> > > > observers A and B, then observer A will claim that B's clock is
> > running
> > > > slow AND observer B will claim that A's clock is running slow.
Now
> > you
> > > > tell me, which observer is the one that SR says is the one at
> > absolute
> > > > rest?
> > >
> > > Sigh....SR claims that all observers are at absolute rest. That's
why
> > all
> > > observers see all clocks moving wrt them are running slow.
> >
> > Whaaaattt? What does "absolute" mean to you? You are using the term
> > differently than just about everybody else. Certainly SR does NOT
says
> > that all inertial observers are at absolute rest. It says EXACTLY
the
> > opposite. It says there is NO inertial observer at absolute rest.
>
> In SR an observer assumes all clocks moving wrt him are running slow.
This
> assumption is valid only if the observer is in a state of absolute
rest and
> all the observed clock are doing the moving..

No, you are running in circles. Where (please cite a reference) does
SR, any reference at all, say that the observer is at absolute rest??
If you can't do this, you're just making it up.

> >
> > > >
> > > > you're
> > > > > > saying? (See my next comment below...)
> > > > >
> > > > > NO that's not what I am saying. I am saying that an observer
uses
> > PoR
> > > > to
> > > > > assume that he is at absolute rest is what make SR
incomplete.
> > Why?
> > > > Because
> > > > > in real life all observers are moving and that means that an
> > observer
> > > > will
> > > > > see some clock running slow and some clock running fast.
> > > >
> > > > Bull. The PoR is NOT used to single out a frame. It is used to
make
> > all
> > > > inertial frames completely indistinguishable. If you dispute
this,
> > then
> > > > state clearly what you think the PoR says.
> > >
> > > PoR is used to place each observer in the absolute rest frame.
That's
> > why
> > > each observer sees all clcoks moving wrt him is running slow.
> >
> > No, it is NOT. This is *completely* contrary to what SR says. It
says
> > that NO observer is in an absolute rest frame, because there IS NO
> > absolute rest frame.
>
> NO it is not contrary to what SR says. SR says at the rest frame of
the
> observer, he assumes that all clocks moving wrt to him are running
slow.

1. He doesn't ASSUME. He FINDS.

> This assumption is valid only if the rest frame of the observer is
truly an
> absolute rest frame.

2. No, this is YOUR conclusion, not SR's. SR says the opposite. If you
say SR does say this, prove it with a citation.

>
> >Nevertheless, the PoR is assumed to hold in all
> > inertial frames (NONE of them at absolute rest), that the physical
laws
> > are invariant regardless.
>
> So??/ The PoR is based on a rubber second and that why it hold in all
> inertial frames. IRT agrees to that. In fact the first postulate of
IRT is
> the PoR.
> >
> > > >
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A description of IRT is as follows:
> > > > > > > The postulates:
> > > > > > > 1) The laws of physics based on a clock second and light
> > path
> > > > > > > length of a measuring rod are the same for all observers
in
> > > > > > > all inertial reference frames.
> > > > > > > 2) The speed of light in free space based on a clock
second
> > > > > > > and the light path length of a measuring rod has the
same
> > > > > > > mathematical ratio c in all directions and all inertial
> > frames.
> > > > > > > 3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute
second
> > > > > > > and the physical length of a rod is different in
different
> > > > frames
> > > > > > > of reference.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, yes, it appears the IRT *does* say that the PoR does
not in
> > > > general
> > > > > > hold.
> > > > >
> > > > > NO....IRT says that PoR hold in general if it is based on a
clock
> > > > second
> > > > > (rubber second) to measure *time* and a rubber ruler in the
form
> > of
> > > > light-
> > > > > second to measure space.
> > > > > Notice that postulate #3 says that PoR does not hold if we
use a
> > > > defined
> > > > > absolute second to measure *time* and a non-rubber ruler to
> > measure
> > > > length.
> > > >
> > > > OK, so now you're arguing with Galileo,
> > >
> > > No I am not.
> >
> > Umm, you say about a dozen lines below that IRT doesn't agree with
> > Galilean relativity. Are you agreeing or not?
>
> IRT is an expanded version of SR. It does not agree with Galilean
> relativity.
> >
> > >
> > > >who said that the PoR DOES hold
> > > > if we use an absolute second to measure time and a non-rubber
ruler
> > to
> > > > measure length.
> > >
> > > This statement disagrees with IRT. IRT says that PoR does NOT
hold if
> > we use
> > > an absolute second to measure time and a non-rubber ruler to
measure
> > length.
> >
> > Then your claim that SR is subsumed as a subset of IRT is bogus,
> > because SR *assumes* that the PoR holds for all inertial frames.
>
> Sigh....the first postulate of IRT is the PoR. PoR hold if time
measurement
> is based on a clock second (a rubber second).
> >
> > >
> > > >That's Galilean invariance, by the way. I'm not saying
> > > > that Galileo was right, by the way, I just want to get clear on
> > what
> > > > you're saying.
> > >
> > > IRT doesn't agree with Galilean relativity either.
> >
> > OK, just checking.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >You are saying that the laws of physics depend on the
inertial
> > > > > > frame of reference.
> > > > >
> > > > > ???????I didn't say that.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of a defined absolute second and a physical length
of a
> > > > rod, yes. Postulate 3.
> > >
> > > Postulate 3 of IRT says that the laws of physics based on a
defined
> > absolute
> > > second and physical length of a rod is different is different in
> > different
> > > inertial frame. I suppose what you said is equivalent to that.
> >
> > You betcha. And this is what I want you to be absolutely rock solid
> > about, because it's an extraordinary claim.
>
> It is not an extraordinary claim at all. Using a define absolute
second to
> do physics will result different physical laws for different frames.

And naturally, I want an illustration of this.

> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no idea what you are trying to say.
> > > >
> > > > You are saying the laws of physics based on an absolute second
and
> > a
> > > > physical length of a rod differ in different reference frames.
I
> > gave
> > > > you a physical law and asked you to show me how it changes in a
> > > > different reference frame. If it's different, HOW is it
different?
> > > > Explicitly.
> > >
> > > If you use a "defined absolute second" in place of a regular
clock
> > second in
> > > all the SR equations you will find that the laws of physics is
not
> > the same
> > > in different inertial frames.
> >
> > No, you do it. One simple example, is all I'm asking. Take
conservation
> > of momentum in one frame where it appears to hold, and then show me
> > what the new law looks like in a different frame. Or another
example of
> > your choosing. But since you are making this claim, you need to
show
> > how it works out.
>
> No you do it. Can't you read what the #3 postulate says? It says that
the
> laws of physics based on a defined absolute second is different is
different
> in different frames (that includes conservation of momentum).

Your model, bub. You can't say, "It's just different" without showing
HOW it's different. An illustration, please. Otherwise what you're
doing is crap science.

> >
> > > >
> )?
> > >
> > > No the clock second at the equator will contain more universal
time
> > than a
> > > clock second at the pole. That's why the GPS do not use a surface
> > clock
> > > second to synchronize the ground clocks with the satellite
clocks.
> > They use
> > > the ECI clock to synchronize the ground clock with the satellite
> > clock. The
> > > reason is that the ECI clock second maintains a constant
universal
> > time
> > > content
> >
> > OK, now I'm confused. I didn't ask you about a clock second, I
asked
> > you about an earth clock second. You say that the clock second is
> > different than the defined absolute second, and then you say the
> > defined absolute second is equal to an earth clock second. (Read
your
> > own writing above.)
>
> Any clock second at any location can be used as a defined absolute
second.
> Once this is established you can use SR/GR or IRT to determine the
clock
> time value for a defined absolute second in any other frame.
>
> >
> > You say the clock second is different at the equator than it is
near
> > the pole.
>
> No I didn't say that. I said that a clock second at the equator
contains a
> different amount of universal time than a clock second at the pole.
>
> >Is the defined absolute second (the earth clock second)
> > different at the equator than it is near the pole?
>
> If you established that the defined absolute second is located on the
> equator then you use SR/GR or IRT to determine the clock time value
for this
> defined absolute second at the pole.

So do it. Define the absolute second to be at the equator, and
determine the clock second at the pole.

>
> Ken Seto

Loading